Volume 11, Issue 1
These twenty holdouts were called every disparaging name in the book, from self-serving egotist to political terrorist. The analysis of their tenacity was dissected through multiple lenses. What did they want anyway?
The point missed about the situation when examined under the microscope for a motive was the tenacity of the 203 Congressmen who were summarily committed to Congressman McCarthy. What did they want anyway?
Neither side in the protracted contest stated a clear vision of legislative objective. What was it that enraged one Congressman to threaten physical attack on one member of the rebels? What was the moral principle that compelled a McCarthy supporter to embarrass himself? Was it because he believed in a balanced budget, border security, or a strong national defense? If so, he never articulated the genesis of his moral outrage.
Lauren Boebert, a young Congresswoman-elect from Colorado, did have the courage to go on MSNBC’s 11th Hour and subject herself to a confrontational interview with Stephanie Ruhle. Congresswoman Boebert simply stated that they, as a “no” group, were opposed to business as usual. In the past decade, Congress led by both parties had failed to manage fiscal restraint, secure the borders, or curtail the systemic breach of federal overreach. National intellects seem to promote that governance in and of itself, regardless of successful objective, is the purpose of government.
One particular concession demanded by the rebels was the commitment to eliminate omnibus bills. It has become common procedure for the ruling party to send 4,000-page legislation, filled with special interest earmarks, to the House floor for a vote with less than 24 hours’ notice. Controversial federal policy, regulation, and spending is obfuscated without transparency or accountability for the public’s review. Boebert eloquently explained that the people have a right to know what their government is doing.
There are two dominant philosophies prevalent in the world driving government purpose. One embraces the belief that citizens are incapable, individually or collectively, of coming to rational decisions for the governance of society. It is not that leaders of this philosophy just believe in total government control; they have little regard for the people’s wisdom. They reject the people’s role in governance even as advisory. The other embraces the belief that the citizens are sovereign over government policy. Leaders of this philosophy believe in the democratic process wherein elected officials are advisory to the citizens’ will. The citizens collectively rule. This group believes in transparency and open ventilation of all controversial issues. They are committed to at least present all alternatives, remedies, and consequences for the people’s discernment.
Neither the progressives nor conservatives in Congress have been successful in passing legislation supportive of their primary government themes. The issues of climate control or fiscal restraint do not enjoy the general will and support of the people. Therefore, both camps attempt to stay in power without any measure of accountability for the advancement of policy rendering progress on their core principles. This has been for the past two decades business as usual.
The last time an election for Speaker of the House of Representatives took more than fifteen ballots was in 1820. John W. Taylor was elected Speaker on the 22nd ballot. The issue then was the Missouri Compromise setting the protocol for the admission of free and slave states to the Union. The nation was divided on a core belief of morality. It was with this in mind that Abraham Lincoln quoted Jesus Christ from Mark 3:25, “And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.” Jesus was referring to belief in God. President Lincoln was referring to belief in a righteous principle. The two beliefs are woven with the same thread of moral purpose. The U.S. House standing divided in the 1820s on consensus agreement for the purpose of government led to Civil War.
The members of the rebellious caucus are not perfect by any means. However, no one is. Each one of us can only meet our obligation to support righteous government by committing to righteous purpose of government.
Division of purpose in government is one definition of a house divided. Such conflict in such principle of basic belief, unaddressed, will leave that government unable to stand. The belief that the people are sovereign cannot be compromised with the excuse that business as usual is restitutive.
The integrity of the intent of Congress is what is at issue. May 2023 be the beginning of a new era of respect for the people’s will in the people’s House.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?